Los Angeles Community College District (PERB 0489E)

HOWARD O. WATTS,
Complainant, 	Case No. LA-PN-79
v . 	PERB Decision No. 489
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE 	February 28, 1985
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Appearances: Howard O. Watts, in his own behalf;
Carmen D. Hawkins, Attorney for the Los Angeles Community
College District.
Before Tovar, Jaeger and Burt, Members.
DECISION AND ORDER
JAEGER, Member : Howard O. Watts appeals the dismissal of
his public notice complaint alleging that the Los Angeles
Community College District violated section 3547(a) of the
Educational Employment Relations Act by placing on its
public meeting agenda a nonspecific salary proposal submitted
by Los Angeles City and County Employees Union, Local 99,
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, and by
accepting the union's oral clarification of the proposal for
the purposes of complying with the Act.
A regional representative of the Public Employment
Relations Board dismissed the complaint, concluding that
1codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
STATE	STATE OF CALIFORNIA	
OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE	DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD	PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
HOWARD
	O. 	WATTS,
Complainant,
v.
LOS
	ANGELES
	COMMUNITY
	COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case
	No.
	LA-PN-79
PERB
	Decision
	No.	
489
February
	28, 	1985
Appearances:	
Howard
	O.
	Watts,
	in 	his
	own
	behalf;
Carmen
	D.
	Hawkins,
	Attorney 	for 	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Community
College
	District.
Before
	Tovar,
	Jaeger
	and
	Burt,
	Members.
DECISION
	AND
	ORDER
JAEGER,
	Member: 	Howard
	O.
	Watts
	appeals 	the
	dismissal 	of
his
	public 	notice
	complaint
	alleging 	that
	the
	Los
	Angeles
Community
	College
	District
	violated 	section
	3547(a)
	of
	the
Educational
	Employment
	Relations
	Act
1
by
	placing
	on
	its
public
	meeting 	agenda
	a
	nonspecific 	salary
	proposal 	submitted
by 	Los
	Angeles
	City
	and 	County 	Employees 	Union, 	Local 	99,
Service
	Employees
	International
	Union,
	AFL-CIO, 	and 	by
accepting 	the 	union's 	oral 	clarification
	of 	the 	proposal 	for
the 	purposes 	of
	complying 	with 	the 	Act.
A
	regional 	representative 	of 	the 	Public
	Employment
Relations
	Board
	dismissed 	the 	complaint, 	concluding
	that
1
codified 	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3540
	et 	seq.

Local 99's oral clarification of the proposal at two public
meetings held by the District constituted sufficient notice to
the public and satisfied the requirement of section 3547(a) .
The Board summarily affirms the attached ruling of the
regional representative. 	The charge is DISMISSED.
Complainant's request for oral argument is DENIED. 	The
Board finds the record is sufficiently clear to make oral
argument unnecessary.
Members Tovar and Burt joined in this Decision.
2
Local
	99's
	oral
	clarification
	of
	the 	proposal
	at
	two
	public
meetings 	held
	by
	the
	District
	constituted
	sufficient
	notice
	to
the 	public
	and
	satisfied
	the
	requirement 	of
	section
	3547(a).
The
	Board
	summarily
	affirms
	the
	attached 	ruling
	of
	the
regional 	representative.
	The
	charge
	is
	DISMISSED.
Complainant's
	request 	for
	oral
	argument
	is
	DENIED.
	The
Board
	finds 	the 	record
	is
	sufficiently 	clear
	to
	make
	oral
argument
	unnecessary.
Members
	Tovar
	and
	Burt
	joined 	in
	this
	Decision.
2

GEORGE DEUXMEJIAN, Cormor
On
was
Dear
Re :
1021 	North 	Mariposa
A
Howard O. Watts
June
RELATIONS
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
PUSllC
	EMPLOYMENT
	BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470
'NILS);lRE BLVD.,
SUITE
1001
OS ANGl:lt:S, CALIFO"NIA	
90010
(213) 735-3127
	(213)
7'.lo-3127
28,
	1984
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL,	
NOTICE
LA-PN-79,
	Watts 	v.
	Los
	Angeles
	Communitv
	College
	District
Mr.
	Watts:
Your
	above-captioned 	public
	notice
	complaint
	filed
	with 	our
office
	on
	April
	20, 	1984.
	The
	complaint
	alleges
	that
	(1)
	the
Los
	Angeles
	Com:nunity
	College
	District
	(LACCD)
	violated
	3547(a)
of
	the
	Act
	by
	not
	properly
	listing
	Los
	Angeles
	City
	and 	County
School
	Employees
	Union,
	Local
	99's
	(Local
	99}
	initial
	propos~l
for
	the
	salary
	reop.ener
	for 	the
	1983
	fiscal
	year
	on
	the
	March
(2)
	the
	21,
	1984
	agenda
	of 	the
	Board
	of 	Trustees
	meeting 	ana
District
	violated
	3547(b)
	by
	changing 	Local
	99 1 s
	proposal
	on
the 	April
	4,
	1984
	Board's
	agenda
	thereby 	not 	allowing 	the
public
	to
	speak
	to 	only
	one
	version 	of 	the 	proposal.
among
	others.
	At
	June 	15,
	1984 	we.met
	to 	discuss
	this
	cas~ 	At
that
	time,
	I
	indicat.ed
	to
	you
	that
	pursuant 	to
	32920 (e)
	of 	the
Regulz-.:ions
	thn
	comr_llaint
	.:ail~d 	to 	~rate
	a
	r:irna 	f~cie
Your	
violation
	of
	3547 	and
	could
	not
	be
	amenaed
	to
	do
	so.
	Your
position
	was
	that
	despite 	the
	fact 	that
	a
	Local
	99
	spokesperson
verbally
	proposal
	at
	the
	March
	clarified
	the
	salary
	reopener
initially
	21,
	1984 	Board 	mee~ing,
	the
	written
	propo~al
	that
	was
Asunshine<l~	
varied
	from
	the 	written 	proposal 	that
	was
	on 	the
(Local 99	
Board's
	agenda
	for 	public 	response
	on
	April
	4, 	1984. 	(Local
	99
Prete 	indicated
	at
	the
	Board
	Business 	Representative 	Pat
meeting 	of
	March
	21,
	1984
	that
	the
	employee
	organization's
over 	the
	intent
	was
	to 	request
	a
	$2.00 	per
	hour
	increase
1982-83 salary schedule.)	
1982-83
	salary
	schedule.}
	The
	April 	4,
	1984
	District
informative 	contained 	the 	$2.00 	per 	hour 	proposal 	whereas 	the
March 	21, 	1984
	proposal
	had
	not 	mentioned 	any 	spe<=ific 	amount.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE	LOS
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1001
OS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
June 28, 1984
Howard 	O.
	Watts
Re:
	OF
	DISMISSAL
LA-PN-79, Watts v. Los Angeles Community College District
Dear Mr. Watts:
venue,	
Apt.
	3
	1/2
Los
	Angeles,
	CA
	90029
GEORGE DEUi<J.lulAN,
eo..,,.,.,..,,.
Your above-captioned public notice complaint was filed with our
office on April 20, 1984. The complaint alleges that (1) the
Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) violated 3547 (a)
of the Act by not properly listing Los Angeles City and County
School Employees Union, Local 99's (Local 99) initial proposal
for the salary reopener for the 1983 fiscal year on the March
21, 1984 agenda of the Board of Trustees meeting and (2) the
District violated 3547 (b) by changing Local 99's proposal on
the April 4, 1984 Board's agenda thereby not allowing the
public to speak to only one version of the proposal.
On June 15, 1984 we met to discuss this case among others.
that time, I indicated to you that pursuant to 32920 (e) of the
Regulations the complaint Sailed to state a prima facie
violation of 3547 and could not be amended to do so.
position was that despite the fact that a Local 99 spokesperson
verbally clarified the salary reopener proposal at the March
21, 1984 Board meeting, the written proposal that was initially
"sunshined" varied from the written proposal that was on the
Board's agenda for public response on April 4, 1984.
Business Representative Pat Prete indicated at the Board
meeting of March 21, 1984 that the employee organization's
intent was to request a $2.00 per hour increase over the
The April 4, 1984 District
informative contained the $2.00 per hour proposal whereas the
March 21, 1984 proposal had not mentioned any specific amount.

not
representative might have made was quickly and thoroughly
proposal
Act 
April
June 	28,
	1984
LA-PN-79
Page
	2
from
	Minutes
	both
	meetings
	of
	March
	21,
	ana
	4,
	1984
that
	you
	were
	present,
	questioned
	Mr.
	Prete
	on
	March
indicate
21,
	1984
	and 	had 	an
	opportunity
	on
	April
	4,
	1984
	to
	respond
	to
Local
	99's
	proposal.
proposals
Section 	of
	all 	initial
3547(a)
	the 	provides
	that
public
	meeting
	of
	the
	public 	school
shall
	be
	presented
	at
	a
Local
	99's
	proposal
	on
	the
	wage
	reopener
	was
employer .	
employer.
presented
	at
	the
	meeting
	of
	March
	21, 	1984.
	The
	employer
clearly
	cannot
	dictate
	how,
	or
	in
	what 	form 	an
	exclusiveas
representative
	presents
	it
	proposal
	• 	The
Local
	99
	at.the
	March
	21,
	1984
	Board
	meeting
submitted	
by
reopener.
	At
indicated
	the
	subject 	of
	the 	proposal 	as 	the
	wage 	At
Prete 	specified 	the
	99
	representative
	that
	meeting, 	Local
increase.
	You
	had
	the
amount
	of
	the 	requested
	salary
meeting.
	At
	the
opportunity
	to
	question
	Mr.
	Prete
	at 	this
meetin~ the
	District
	afforded
	you
	time
	to
	express
subsequent
yourself
	as
	to 	said
	proposal 	before
	me~ting
	and
	negotiating
the 	proposal
	on
began.
	If
	Mr.
	Prete
	had
	failed
	to
	clarify
would
	have 	been
	gi~en
	to 	the 	lack 	of
consideration
	salaries,specificity
rectified.
b?.Cause
	Ther~fore,
	the
	instant
	complaint
	does
	state
	a
	pri
tofac
ie	
violation
	of
	EERA 	sect:.ioI\
	35
41	
and
	cannot
	be::
	ame.1de<l
do
	so,
	it
	is
	hereby
	DISMISSED
	WITHOO'I' 	LEAVE
	TO
	A.\fEND.
Minutes from both meetings of March 21, and April 4, 1984
indicate that you were present, questioned Mr. Prete on March
21, 1984 and had an opportunity on April 4, 1984 to respond to
Local 99's proposal.
June 28, 1984
LA-PN-79
Page 2
Section 3547 (a) of the Act provides that all initial proposals
shall be presented at a public meeting of the public school
Local 99's proposal on the wage reopener was
presented at the meeting of March 21, 1984. The employer
clearly cannot dictate how, or in what form an exclusive
representative presents it proposall. 1 The proposal as
submitted by Local 99 at the March 21, 1984 Board meeting
indicated the subject of the proposal as the wage reopener.
that meeting, Local 99 representative Prete specified the
amount of the requested salary increase. You had the
opportunity to question Mr. Prete at this meeting. At the
subsequent meeting the District afforded you time to express
yourself as to said proposal before meeting and negotiating
began. If Mr. Prete had failed to clarify the proposal on
salaries, consideration would have been given to the lack of
specificity, but any mistake or misjudgment the exclusive	
2,
	but
	any
	mistake 	or
	misjudgment
	the 	exclusive
representative
	might
	have
	made 	was
	quickly
	and
	thoroughly
rectified.
Therefore, because the instant complaint does not state a prima
facie violation of EERA section 354/ and cannot be amended to
do so, it is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 
ma
zSee
Los
I	
in 	Decision
	No. 	158 	Kirn:mett 	v
..
	Angeles
PERB
Emnoloyees
Communit
	Coll
	e
	District
	and 	Calif"ornia 	School
it
	was
	the
Association,
	Chapter 	307
	(3/3
	81),
	explained
	that
"obligation
	and
	responsibility 	of
	the 	employer
	to 	provide
publice 	notice
	and
	to 	present 	both 	the 	exclusive 	representative
to
and
	own.
	Clearly,
	you
	didn't
	expect 	the 	employer 	modify
its representative.the 	written 	proposal 	of 	the 	exclusive
v. 	Palo 	Alto
	USD
	and 	Palo 	Educators
Association 	(12/2/81)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	184.
1PERB in Decision No. 158 Kimmett v. Los Angeles
Community College District and California School Employees
Association, Chapter 307 (3/3/81), explained that it was the
"obligation and responsibility of the employer to provide
publice notice and to present both the exclusive representative
and its own. Clearly, you didn't expect the employer to modify
the written proposal of the exclusive representative.
Alto	Fein	See Fein v. Palo Alto USD and Palo Alto Educators
Association (12/2/81) PERB Decision No. 184.

RS:bw
Ro~
Frances
Sincerely,
June
	28,
	1984
LA-PN-79
Page
	3
A~
	KreilingRegional
	Director
Smith
Regional 	Representative
June 28, 1984
LA-PN-79
Page 3
Additionally, your request for assistance filed on May 4, 1984
pursuant to Regulation 32163 is hereby dismissed. There were
no technical deficiencies in this complaint that I could have
helped you correct. I will remain available to assist you with
any technical problems you may have in filing or processing
your complaints but I will not provide legal advise or opinion
to help you correct your allegations.
An appeal of this decision pursuant to PERB Regulation 32925
may be made within 20 calendar days following the date of
service of this decision by filing an original and 5 copies of
a statement of the facts upon which the appeal is based with
the Board itself at 1031 - 18th Street, Suite 200, Sacramento,
California 95815. Copies of any appeal must be concurrently
served upon all parties and the Los Angeles Regional Office.
Proof of service pursuant to Regulation 32140 is required.
Sincerely,
Frances A. Kreiling
Regional Director
Roger Smith
Regional Representative
RS : bw
cc:	cc: Carmen Hawkins
(h
An
request
Carmen 	Hawkins
for
	assistance
..t.,
filed
	on
	Miy
	4,
	1984
	Additionally,
	your
pursuant 	to
	Regulation
	32163
	is
	hereby
	dismissed.
	There
	were
I
	could
	have
	no
	technical 	deficiencies
	in
	this
	complaint
	that
helped
	you
	correct.
	I
	will
	remain
	available 	to
	assist
	you
	with
you
	have
	in
	filing
	or
	processing
	any
	technical
	problems
	may
your 	complaints 	but
	I
	will
	not 	provide
	legal
	advise 	or
	opinion
to 	help
	you
	correct
	your
	allegations.
to
	PERB
	Regulation
	32925
	appeal
	of
	this
	decision
	pursuant
may
	be
	made
	within
	20
	calendar
	days
	following
	the
	date 	of
service 	of
	this
	decision	
by	
filing
	an
	original
	and 	5
	copies 	of
a
	statement 	of
	the
	facts
	upon 	which
	the 	appeal
	is
	based
	with
the
	Board
	itself 	at
	1031
	-
	18th
	Street,
	Suite
	200,
	Sacramento,
California
	95815. 	Copies
	of
	any
	appeal
	must
	be
	concurrently
served
	upon
	all
	parties
	and
	the
	Los
	Angeles 	Regional
	Office.
Proof 	of 	service
	pursuant 	to
	Regulation
	32140
	is
	required.
J--d